Ok, just for fun, first read this...<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>(CBS) When the Senate Intelligence Committee released a declassified version of its findings this past week, the Republican chairman of the committee, Pat Roberts, left town without doing interviews, calling the report a rehash of unfounded partisan allegations.<br><br>Its statements like this one, made Feb. 5, 2003, by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell that have become so controversial, implying Iraq was linked to terror attacks.<br><br>"Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associated collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," Powell said.<br><br>But after 2 1/2 years of reviewing pre-war intelligence behind closed doors, the lead Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, who voted for the Iraq War, says the Bush administration pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.<br><br>"The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war,'" Rockefeller told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. "Including me. The difference is after I began to learn about some of that intelligence I went down to the Senate floor and I said 'my vote was wrong.'"<br><br>Rockefeller went a step further. He says the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq.<br><br>Does Rockefeller stands by his view, even if it means that Saddam Hussein could still be in power if the United States didn't invade?<br><br>"Yes. Yes. [Saddam] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there," Rockefeller said. "He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn't have depleted our resources preventing us from prosecuting a war on terror which is what this is all about."<br><br>Republicans say there was flawed intelligence to be sure, but they insist there was no attempt to mislead the public.<br><br>"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," White House Spokesman Tony Snow said.<br><br>(C)MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->URL: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/09/eveningnews/main1990644.shtml">www.cbsnews.com/stories/2...0644.shtml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>...then this...<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>The media failed to tell you these events<br>September 9th, 2006<br><br>By this time you all heard that Saddam had no link to al-Qaeda report, but there are two events happened at the same time, which I couldnt find on the western media.<br><br>One day before the release of this report, Aliraqnews said the following:<br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><br> There was a conference in Ammman Jordan, among 295 Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders none of them is a member of Al-Qaida or Ansar Al-Islam, preparing for the reconciliation conference, and the conference came with this statement:<br><br> We demand the release of Saddam Hussein and to include Baathists in the reconciliation conference as a condition for the achievement of security and stability, not because we are loyalists, but to close this file.<br></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br>[Remember..? James Baker met the Sunni leaders few days ago (see: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090100522_pf.html)">www.washingtonpost.com/wp...2_pf.html)</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END-->]<br><br>The second event came for Arabic newspaper Al-Watan:<br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><br> Request from Saudi Arabia and the US: News of Yemen, Qatar negotiating for the return of the former Iraqi regimes rule<br><br> Intensive diplomacy carried out by Saudi Arabia, on regional and international levels to prevent the domination of Iran on the region after the defeat by Israel in the recent war on Lebanon and Hezbollah, which is considered by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, politically a strategic victory for Iran and Syria, and threaten security and stability in these countries.<br><br> The White House to negotiate indirectly with the leaders of the Baath Party and the former Iraqi regime to persuade them to return to the government and headed by President / Saddam Hussein as the only one capable of settle the situation to what it was before the invasion. <br></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br>Coincidently?<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->URL: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2006/09/09/the-media-failed-to-tell-you-these-events/">www.roadstoiraq.com/2006/...se-events/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

Now I am really confused. Jay Rockefeller is a CIA/bilderberger/Council on Foreign Relations NWO guy, but he is against Bush Jr., so that is awesome. Never mind this: "Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, who voted for the Iraq War, says the Bush administration pulled the wool over everyone's eyes." Ahem. <br><br>James Baker is a CFR, Carlyle Group NWO guy who sees things the way Pappy Bush Sr. and Rockefeller see things. Not too long ago, things were arranged so that Iraq would surely fall into a civil war. Mission accomplished. Soon after, the CFR and NYT were floating the "split Iraq into 3 states" solution. George W Bush, himself split into 3 states, just needs someone to fix this for him, so he's game for whatever. <br><br>Saddam (if that is Saddam!) trial is a farce and can go nowhere. Big, big problems in dealing with Iran. Israel thinking twice about attacking. US in no mood for that though some wish they could. Midterm elections coming up. No one would put Saddam back before midterm elections. Maybe after, with democratic control of congress. However, on the face of it, Iran and the entire "emergent" Shia crescent would not stand for a Saddam return. Moreover, world's biggest US embassy in Baghdad plus 4, 5, 6 US/Brit military bases (transferred from Saudi Arabia basically) would make Saddam rule Part II, well, superfluous, which I guess could be the point. And there are some solutions in this: no need to continue the saddam trial; with a humiliated, well-guarded (and by now, brainwashed?) Saddam under full control, Saddam can take over the Sunni part of Tri-Iraq and potentially halt the civil war; US troops can be withdrawn to a core size to man the bases; Iran could be given control of the Shiite Part of Iraq with guarantees on Kurdish good behavior in the north, in exchange for face-saving nuclear agreements. On the other hand, I can't see Iran in Iraq together with Saddam as going all that well. <br><br>Meanwhile, fact is, the Atlantic-Israeli-Saudi oligarchs do not want Iran to exist as it is now. (Maybe the US and Israel will go ahead with an Iran regime change, which would make Saddam Part II 33% rule more feasible, maybe in some kind of post-midterm Demoratic liberal nazi congress trade off with the conservative Nazi factions: we let you go after Iran, but then we get to put Saddam in control of the Sunnis.) The people of Iraq have been traumatized and beaten down so badly that they are more than willing to agree to any rule will stop the bloodshed. But the Eurasian guys do not want the Atlantic-Israeli-Saudi oligarchs to exist in their neighborhood and would rather keep the Iranian status quo. Afghanistan and Pakistan are on the verge of becoming Iraq. Musharref and Karzai's time is up. Russia and the US, for some reason, are planning to arm afghanis and pakistanis to the teeth. Is that some kind of Atlantic-Eurasian cooperation? India, big wild card. <br><br>No idea what's going on but it does smack somewhat of Old CIA/Eastern Elites vs. New Military Intelligence Complex. Liberal Nazis vs. Conservative Nazis. DC vs Denver? DC/London vs. Tel Aviv/Denver vs. Eurasia? Anyway too many double agents, easily-bought alliances, interlocking interests, and overlapping factions to posit such neatly formed "teams." <br><br>In short, Oligarch bastards vs. the rest of us. When the big guys rumble, we pay for it. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 9/10/06 6:21 am<br></i>

Gosh, and how could I forget about the Kurdish/Turkish factor in all this. Kurds hold considerable power and numbers in the middle east and Turkey. Turkey holds considerable leverage over the middle east in terms of water and cooperation (or non-cooperation) with the US. Turkish/Kurdish relations are key to any grand chessboard strategy. <br><br>It would be in the interest of Turks and Iranians to keep the Kurds in check. A Saddam return would inflame the Kurds mightily, which no Turk or Arab or Persian would like.<br> <br>So the Kurdish threat might be used by the US to push the Turks (who are willing in some ways, divided in others) to exert more influence in the middle east. The Turks will be patrolling the waters of Lebanon as part of the UN deal. <br><br>WATER also comes in. In southeastern Anatolia Turkey, (huge Kurdish presence) giant dams (the Attaturk Dam, for one) control the flow of water to Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. These dams are a huge, little discussed pwer card the Turks hold. Water vs. Oil influence will be increasing. <br><br>So, some nasty games are being played with the Kurds and this stuff has implications for the future "Iraq" (as if there is one) and the Israel vs. Middle east equations. <br><br>Remember General Ralston of Clinton/Kosovo/Bosnia days? Well, he was appointed as a US "coordinator" for the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) in Trkey matter. This naturally makes Turks nervous, since they remember well the US's hanky-panky with the KLA in Kosovo. Ralston is also a partner of the Cohen group and a director on the board of URS Corporation. <br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Again, Washington has appointed retired General Joseph Ralston as a "coordinator" for the PKK matter. But according to top Turkish commentator Fatih Altayli, this only "caused annoyance" to Turkish security agencies, which felt that the move held no "meaning" for Turkey as there was "no need for such a coordination group". <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Altayli quoted Turkish intelligence sources as sensing a "dangerous aspect" to Washington's decision, </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->since "if a US coordinator, who will have an official title, meets with the PKK, and that, too, with Turkey's approval, and performs the role of a go-between for Turkey and the PKK, then Turkey will face a fait accompli"...<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The question once again returns like a bad coin to the war in Iraq: Can Washington afford to antagonize its Kurdish allies in northern Iraq? </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI09Ag01.html">www.atimes.com/atimes/Cen...9Ag01.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Of course, the US has no "Kurdish allies" - they are pawns to be used and dropped depending on their stock value. A little antogonism might send prices up. <br><br>Maybe Baker III and Ralston are meant to make the Turks nervous and more amiable. Yet the risk is stirring up Turkish nationalist/Islamist alliance who could overthrow a compliant pro-western Turkish government. Tightrope. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 9/10/06 7:25 am<br></i>

Thanks for weighing in on this, Gouda. I really need to get my head back into what's going on in Middle East, but the situation has gotten extremely chaotic.<br><br>The major powers, particularly some of the key brass in the US military if there's any truth to the rumors, were not able to form a consensus on attacking Iran. This, I believe, was the source of (among other contradicting indicators) the conflicting streams of propaganda about Zacharia al Zarqawi a few months back. Now, after the failed live fire exercise in Southern Lebanon, pretty much everyone is reaching for their own, personal Plan B's.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>No idea what's going on but it does smack somewhat of Old CIA/Eastern Elites vs. New Military Intelligence Complex. Liberal Nazis vs. Conservative Nazis. DC vs Denver? DC/London vs. Tel Aviv/Denver vs. Eurasia? Anyway too many double agents, easily-bought alliances, interlocking interests, and overlapping factions to posit such neatly formed "teams."<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I think that sums it up nicely.<br><br>I'm not sure what Ralston is up to. The MSM take is that he's there to coordinate US policy to aid the Turks in their efforts against the PKK. It would be very risky for the PKK or another major Kurdish faction, through some hanky-panky involving Ralston or otherwise, to allow themselves to get played, especially by a group of historic double-crossers like the afore mentioned players. They should concentrate on digging in and looking like way more trouble than they are worth. Considering the history of the leadership of the Kurdish war/drug lords, I'd say that pretty much means the Kurds are screwed.<br><br>The Turks are definitely what I'll keep my eye on as a lazy way to follow which direction the winds are blowing. They've got a strong military, good intel all the way across to the *stans, and have been playing realpolitik in that region for... well... a really, really long time.<br><br>The Turk on the street may romantisize about a pan-Muslim alliance with their Arab and Persian neighbors. But, the power in Turkey is in the military, and they'll be very careful to make sure they are on the winning team at the end of the game. <p></p><i></i>

American Turkish Council, Turkish Gladio, Turkish role in the drug trade.... <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm11.showMessage?topicID=413.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...=413.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Didn't have time to find other threads, but I know they are out there. I am convinced RI discussion board rules as the premier open-source parapolitical knowledge dump on the web. But it is sloppy, bad search function, and there is so much redundant information, links, sources. Someone needs to organize it. <br><br>Anyway...<br><br>A telling, curious little factoid about the Turks in Kosovo. In Prizren (principal town in southwest region of Kosovo, large Turkish community) German and Turkish NATO are assigned to keep the peace, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>inter alia.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> The German base camp is located on a road leading out of Prizren. But the Turks, they set up camp in the old Ottoman fort on the hill overlooking the town. "We're baaaaaaack. Remember this?!" Not funny ha ha. Burnt Serbs houses and churches litter the hills below it. Prizren is one of the key Kosovo smuggling gateways to Albania. <p></p><i></i>

I'm sorry, I was wrong in implying that Afghanistan and Pakistan were going to hell on a chessboard. Why, things are indeed looking up there:<br><br>"25-million-dollar Coca-Cola plant opened in Afghanistan"<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060910/bs_afp/afghanistaneconomy">news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006...taneconomy</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>If Afghanistan was better known for coke rather than heroin, the irony would be too dark. <br><br>Karzai's last act? <br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/BUSINESS/09/11/coke.afghanistan.ap/story.karzai.coke.ap.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>"Coca-Cola plant reopens in Kabul amid violence"<br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/09/11/coke.afghanistan.ap/index.html">edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/09/11/coke.afghanistan.ap/index.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Richard Norland, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul's deputy chief of mission, said the Coke factory opening was a positive step that would create more jobs and prove big multinationals could do business in Afghanistan.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The local company's close relationship with Coca-Cola Pakistan might also help improve ties between Kabul and Islamabad, </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->which have been accusing each other of not doing enough to fight terrorism.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> Corporations save the day! Just don't pay any attention to India. <br><br>"Coca-Cola in India accused of leaving farms parched and land poisoned" <br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/water/story/0,13790,1012193,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/water/story/0,13790,1012193,00.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>"Message in a Bottle- How Coca-Cola Gave Back to Plachimada"<br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04162005.html">www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04162005.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>"INDIA:Everything Gets Worse With Coca-Cola"<br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12590">www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12590</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Can we get a plant to Kashmir asap?! <p></p><i></i>

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I am convinced RI discussion board rules as the premier open-source parapolitical knowledge dump on the web. But it is sloppy, bad search function, and there is so much redundant information, links, sources. Someone needs to organize it.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I agree. I'd like to see a site like this based off of the wiki format. That could become a very powerful research tool for the topics discussed here.<br> <p></p><i></i>

Funny you mention it. Just saw this: <br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>"Veni, Vidi, Wiki"</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71733-0.html?tw=wn_index_2">www.wired.com/news/techno...wn_index_2</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>But is there a future for wikis other than the encyclopedia model, or will open collaboration be the exception, not the rule? ...<br><br>Wikis are also tackling politics...<br><br>Wikis are changing the classroom experience. Jonathan Zittrain, a professor at Harvard and Oxford has been using wikis in his cyberlaw class for two years. "Wikis can be an effective tool for collective learning," says Zittrain. "Students realize that they're in it together, and wiki-style collaboration enables them to work toward a consensus or craft a solution." ...<br><br>While Wikipedia is the best-known wiki, it is incorrect to say that all wikis are encyclopedias. Wikis represent distributed decentralized collaborations, allowing virtually anyone to virtually contribute. The project may be an encyclopedia; niche community center; an office task; a conference; a class; a Second Life -- or even an article, such as this one.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>We could call it <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Rigorous Intuition: Parapolitcs, Deep Politics, Dark Politics, Weird Politics - a gathering archive of the hidden fascist thread spanning global politics, sexuality, science and the occult</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. Would be a hell of a lot of work. Maybe a topic for another thread. <p></p><i></i>

Back to Iraq and Balkanization. Peter W. Galbraith -CFR puppy, former ambassador to Croatia, expert on and advocate for the Kurds - has a book out called: <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The End of Iraq - How American Incompetence Created a War Without End.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> Sure we know all about this incompetance. Galbraith might be on the liberal fascist elite side of the neocolonial coin, and he likes the idea of Iraq being broken up into 3 separate entities to be better controlled. Independent Kurdistan is also one of his prescriptions. Post-Yugoslav Balkan model. I bet the democrats can't wait to have <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>their</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> crack again at the middle east. They were just getting warmed up with Yugoslavia. <br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>As a matter of morality, Galbraith writes, the Kurds of Iraq are no less entitled to independence than are Lithuanians, Croatians, or Palestinians. And if the country's majority Shiites want to run their own affairs, or even have their own state, on what democratic principle should they be denied? If the price of a unified Iraq is another dictatorship, Galbraith writes in The End of Iraq, it is too high a price to pay.<br><br>The United States must focus now, not on preserving or forging a unified Iraq, but on avoiding a spreading and increasingly dangerous and deadly civil war. It must accept the reality of Iraq's breakup and work with Iraq's Shiites, Kurds, and Sunni Arabs to strengthen the already semi-independent regions. If they are properly constituted, these regions can provide security, though not all will be democratic.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=517687">simonsays.com/content/boo...pid=517687</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Found this link advertised at the liberal progressive Daily Kos site. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 9/12/06 6:43 am<br></i>